I’ve received some very good commentary on my post, from this past weekend, about the small employer health care tax subsidy — so I’ll reprint the back and forth, here:
Great idea!! Give tax incentives to keep salaries low. Way to help the little guy.
September 21, 2010 8:48 AM
I take it you mean as opposed to returning the tax break to the richest 1/10th of one percent — a break President Obama is ending.
In any event, arguing that the health care package will keep salaries low is — at best — a selective reading. Afterall, with health care, the effective salary is actually increased (for at least 50 million Americans without health benefits, at present).
So — it boils down to this will cost some group something — in order to secure our future. Would you rather that the wealthiest carry their share, or not? If not, vote with the Republicans — that is the center plank of their entire platform, this time around.
Namaste, and thanks for your observations!
Do stop back.
September 21, 2010 11:16 AM
Don’t get me wrong, I think there are good things in this law that Fox News is not mentioning, but I think this particular part misses the mark. Why is it tied to salary at all?
If you have 10 employees earning an average of $25K or less you get a 35% tax credit. If you give them a raise or hire more people, your tax credit goes down.
Seems like they’re incenting the wrong behavior. If I can think of that, why can’t the New York Times? That’s all I’m saying.
September 21, 2010 1:47 PM
I do hear you, but I certainly think that small companies with much-higher-per-employee average salaries ought to be able to fund their own health plans, with only a graduated tax subsidy.
If your particular business has only 11 employees, but all are making $100,000 or more (like many a small architectural, accounting, or law firm), it is not clear in my mind that taxpayers should subsidize health care, there.
The measure we are talking about should help lower-skill, lower income positions at small companies remain eligible for some form of affordable health care coverage. Just as the NYT example suggested — think of a “mom & pop” independent bookstore here.
So, I think it is actually wise policy. In both of our minds, I think, the number of employees ought to be indexed to average earnings — to be eligible for a sliding-scale tax subsidy — so I don’t think we are arguing about whether a line should be drawn — only about WHERE it gets drawn, right?
Thanks for the additional input, here.
September 22, 2010 8:12 AM. . . .
Now, what do you think?